Precautionary principle notwithstanding, this is framing the question wrong. The proper question to ask is: is it safer than microwave transmission at low doses

Precautionary principle notwithstanding, this is framing the question wrong. The proper question to ask is: is it safer than microwave transmission at low doses like used in phones and wifi. Those are already absolutely known to be unsafe. Just extremely mildly. (Likely not even carcinogenic given historical population incidence data. Current evidence suggests similar impact for similar power high frequency transmitters.) Policy questions are not somewhere we can afford ignorance and black and white thinking. Precautionary principle is only good if you're not stopping a better and safer solution with it for sake of conservatism. See, 5G is not just washing everyone with radiation, it comes with widespread beamforming, which is likely to send lower energy through anything obstructing it. Skin effect prevents getting penetrated with the waves at low energy used in communications. Those are extremely strong arguments and the onus is really in anyone that says it's unsafe to actually show it is, properly and without doubt. Otherwise it's plain scaremongering to suggest "we don't know" when the consensus is "it's safe". Exactly the same tactic as used by some climate denialists. Sample study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ (Read all the links to see the whole story. And these scientists used a rather high energy level compared to expected. The current analyses suggest the studies - which mostly show effects - inadequate. There's a strong bias towards publishing an evidence of effect when there's none. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ )